A jury’s composition in criminal cases is critical even in the most heinous crimes because all individuals’ thoughts, race, gender, personal attributes, and demographics can subject a case to prejudice. For example, the case of Miller-El v. Cockrell (2003) was quickly ruled out as it was a subsequent murder conviction. However, there is a possibility that the courts would have come to a less harsh ruling if the jury was comprised of members from other racial backgrounds and minorities.
The ruling by the criminal court and the courts of Appeal that handled Miller-El v. Cockrell (2003) was reasonable considering it was the defendant’s second conviction for murder. However, they were not in line with the 6th Amendment right to a fair trial by an impartial jury because most jury members were white and not representative of the population’s demographics. I presume that the U.S. Supreme court upheld its values towards an equal justice system and made a statement that a jury selection process should never be biased despite the nature of reported crimes. Therefore, shareholders in the justice system should always foresee a just selection process to ensure individuals’ rights to a fair trial.
The main reason why prosecutors would want to thwart jury selection rules and remove prospective jurors from a case is to support a harsh and hefty ruling without any opposition. The American justice system is deeply rooted in racism and prejudice. Therefore, most prosecutors might take advantage of a crime’s nature to overrule attempts to offer a reasonable ruling because of racial discrimination. However, individuals in such systems must stand up for justice by supporting fair processes and trials without considering the crime or race of individuals involved.